Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys
790 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 27 28 29 30 31 32 Newer→ Last
-
Saudi Arabia urging the US to bomb Iran was one of the first cables released
I'm a bit confused about why this is seen as some sort of big surprise. The only think I found remotely interesting was that Saudi bureaucrats were apparently vocal about being less keen on the idea.
The only people I've seen expressing surprise have been right wingers trying to say that this somehow means something. What it means they are less clear on.
But honestly, the Arab gulf states saying "Let's you and him fight" to the US re Iran? Of course they are. They said the same thing to Saddam back in the day, promising all sorts of support in his war with the dreaded persian menace.
-
Oh, so they somehow show the US in a good light.
Presumably because the US didn't immediately leap into a third war in the region, far tougher than the other two that haven't gone too well. That's a pretty low bar.
If the suggestion is that the US has absolutely no intention of attacks on Iran, and that it is madness to have ever thought otherwise, then I'll need to see more evidence. Because the Saudi King saying 'you two should have a fight', doesn't change anything.
Interestingly, the response from some US figures to the cable was that if the saudis want this done, then they should pony up some assets to help. Which while perfectly reasonable, doesn't conflict with the theory that many in the US think attacking Iran has merit.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
so when the cables show the US in a good light, as James pointed out with Iran, then that can't possibly be true because there's the really secret stuff we don't know about.
Good grief, Neil. Think about it.
These cables are mid and low level communications from State Dept officials in the various embassies. How do we know that? Well aside from the obvious, they carry those sorts of classifications on the cables themselves.
CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN SECRET SECRET//NOFORN UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
There are no cables that I've seen that are classified higher.
There are no cabinet level cables, no executive level cables, no Top Secret cables, no DoD cables, no CIA documents, no NSA cables and so on.
It would be unreasonable to expect any confirmation - either way - of an intent to attack Iran or an advanced discussion of such to appear in these. The link James provided however takes that illogical leap and then he too leapt on the result, as you seem to be now.
It, however, makes no sense.
As Russell says, we know, fairly much beyond reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy to rework the evidence to push the US into a war with Iraq. Perhaps you can point me to this in these releases? No? You won't find it because logically it won't appear here. It happened elsewhere.
Do you honestly think that discussions as to the Iran options, including attacks, have not been tabled at the highest level? And we know from the words of people like Bolton, who had enough influence in the Bush WH to be named UN Ambassador, that these were pushed hard by some parties but the CIA and the fact that US is stuck in two wars and struggling, plus potential adverse global reactions, put a brake on these.
Which while perfectly reasonable, doesn't conflict with the theory that many in the US think attacking Iran has merit.
Maybe John Bolton is a lefty plant.
-
Maybe John Bolton is a lefty plant.
I much prefer the description noxious weed.
-
And we know from the words of people like Bolton...
I'm not inclined to trust his words on anything.
So, we have the cables that show the US did not attack Iran despite the pleas of some Arab countries but that evidence is worthless because there might be other secret documents that showed ...what exactly?
There are two facts that one can be certain of - Saudi Arabia wanted Iran bombed and Iran was not bombed. I'm not sure how any even more secret cables could negate those.
The evidence is that despite pleadings from Saudi Arabia Bush did not bomb Iran. The only possible evidence to the contrary would be if Iran had been bombed. Which is not the case - a fact not at the mercy of whatever remains undisclosed.
Also, there's nothing new here. That there were Gulf states that wanted the US to stop Iran is nothing new, there was at least one exchange during the democrat primaries that revolved around that. It's one of the reasons the US is so concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons program - it will cause an arms race with Saudi Arabia and others getting the bomb.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
So, we have the cables that show the US did not attack Iran despite the pleas of some Arab countries but that evidence is worthless because there might be other secret documents that showed ...what exactly?
Nobody said they were worthless but it's glaringly obvious that the stuff that matters at this level does not appear in these sorts of cables.
We don't know what is in the more top secret stuff. Do you? Because it really matters when put up two statements like " Saudi Arabia wanted Iran bombed" & "Iran was not bombed." There is a lot of ground missing between the two that is undocumented.
I'm not inclined to trust his words on anything.
Which means what? He was and is a member of the hugely influential AEI and was close enough to the the centre of things to be named as Ambassador to the UN. I'm gonna assume he was closer to the centre of what was going on that any of the authors of the cables we have. And than you were/are.
There are two facts that one can be certain of - Saudi Arabia wanted Iran bombed and Iran was not bombed.
No, the only thing was can be sure of was that the King of Saudi Arabia (nobody else in his government that I know of, I may be wrong on that) suggested this. We have absolutely no idea why it didn't happen, if such was considered because of this, or the high level machinations that followed this. None. Zero. That the King suggested this is not an automatic trigger nor even a major revelation given history. I doubt it affected core policy in a major way.
Really Neil, I'm having trouble thinking that you are posting this stuff without your tongue firmly placed in the side of your face.
-
Except as pointed out by Sacha the debunking has been debunked.
so corrections have gone to double debunking...
Yes. At a quick glance at the figures, it seems like they do that by virtue of the kind of public health strategising that’s hard to do in a fully private system.
Cuba has lotsa outside help too, my nephew volunteered in a hospital clinic there while doing his medical training along with many others from outside. I think he enjoyed Cuba alot...
Maybe John Bolton is a lefty plant
well he's definitely a sinister creeper...
-
The Australian casts some light on the apparent tension between The Guardian and Assange:
David Leigh, a journalist for The Guardian who has been working on the WikiLeaks material, said: "It's a great shame that more medals aren't being pinned up to the chest of the young soldier Bradley Manning, who actually got the data and is the person who is actually paying the price for it, facing 52 years in prison."
Another Guardian journalist, Nick Davies, who initially persuaded Mr Assange to work with the paper, is understood to have fallen out with him so badly that he decided not to be involved with the embassy cable coverage.
There has been tension at The Guardian over the way Mr Assange, who was originally a hacker, now portrays himself as a journalist. One reporter said: "He wasn't a participant in the journalistic process, he was a participant in the technical process."
Davies, the author of Flat Earth News, wrote The Guardian story that revealed the detailed allegations against Assange, The Independent says:
It is understood that there was a debate inside the paper about whether, and how, to run the article, but that, in the end, The Guardian decided to publish. A close friend said yesterday that Mr Assange regarded the article as "an attack by somebody who he'd hope not to receive it from".
Well, he's still got Jemima Khan and Bianca Jagger ...
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Well, he's still got Jemima Khan and Bianca Jagger ...
And Larry Flynt - publisher/editor of such edifying masturbation aids as Barely Legal and Asian Babes.
And you missed the real money quote from Assange's new landlord:
"I'm not going to criticise Nick Davies. I'm not accusing The Guardian of any wrongdoing. I don't think it delivers any new revelations. I'm sad to read it. The article was critical and I wondered to what extent The Guardian maintains a level of criticism politically to keep off the flak of publishing the leaks. I wonder how much of this is politics. It hasn't made me think that Julian is guilty but it makes me think, perhaps, newspapers feel the need to put in criticism."
*head-desk* Makes me think Assange's celebutard fan club need some alone time with a cult de-programmer.
-
He was and is a member of the hugely influential ...
Bolton was and is a lying self-promoter who never misses an opportunity to inflate his role in things. Bush sent him off to the UN for a short stint to get rid of him.
I think the intial point was that Bush was not a comeplete war-monger, that in the face of pressure to bomb Iran from some Arab countries he didn't.
None of that is news. Some of Iran's neighbours are highly agitated about Iran's nuclear program and the US has for some time had to manage their anxities which was why during the democratic primaries Clinton suggested extending a nuclear unbrella over the Gulf States guaranteeing them security if Iran went nuclear to deter the Gulf states from developing their own nuclear weapons.
-
RB, instead of being petty about the kind of sandals they wear, get on the side of the angels and send some support - www.wikileaks.ch/support.html.
You know you want to. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
RB, instead of being petty about the kind of sandals they wear
It is hardly being petty to take an interest in relations between Assange and the newspaper that has done more than any other to bring the Wikileaks revelations to the world. Nick Davies walking away from the story because he refuses to work with Assange any more is a pretty big thing.
I genuinely think the cult of personality around Assange will eventually be seen as damaging to the professed goals of Wikileaks.
-
So who are these "senior Defence officials" that have been spying for the U.S.?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4475134/Clark-bowed-to-sending-Iraq-troops
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
So who are these “senior Defence officials” that have been spying for the U.S.?
Well, quite. A lot of the rest of that story is more of the basic bullshitting we've seen in other Wellington cables, but that absolutely warrants further investigations.
-
Whilst not a Defence official, we know that Mary Ann Thompson was considered invaluable.
-
I love how Key "could not comment [on that] because he is in Hawaii." Says it all, really.
-
Just a thought ...
I'm guessing that the broker for all the Wellington cables is Nicky Hager. He certainly was for the first round with the SST, and I understand he has all 250k of the documents. I think it puts us in a fortunate position for journalists to be dealing with someone of his discipline and experience.
It's interesting how much more substantial the second round of stories have been -- and it doesn't say much for the editorial judgement of the Star Times.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I love how Key "could not comment [on that] because he is in Hawaii." Says it all, really.
What, he goes on holiday around Christmas? Fucking outrageous. Helen Clark used to be rather hard to find this time of year, given her taste for adventure tourism.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Whilst not a Defence official, we know that Mary Ann Thompson was considered invaluable.
Far out.
-
I'm amazed she was considered trustworthy to be honest.
-
...Clinton suggested extending a nuclear umbrella over the Gulf States guaranteeing them security if Iran went nuclear to deter the Gulf states from developing their own nuclear weapons.
While not on the Gulf per se, Israel's large nuclear arsenal, and sense of entitlement, already provides a destabilising influence on the middle East.
At least Iran is a signatory to international agreements on Nuclear energy, Israel just ignores these while insisting that Iran should toe lines it refuses to. -
3410, in reply to
I'm amazed she was considered trustworthy to be honest.
No indication that she was entrusted with any information, is there? Seems likely to have been a one-way street. Besides, if you're looking for someone to spill the beans to a foreign power, " un trustworthy" is pretty much a prerequisite, no?
-
Hell, did you read the Shipley bio? A women's mag editor would have sent it back with `too grovelling' written all over it.
The US Embassy in Wellington appears to be, to put it politely, a bit of a backwater.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Bush sent him off to the UN for a short stint to get rid of him.
References.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I think the intial point was that Bush was not a comeplete war-monger, that in the face of pressure to bomb Iran from some Arab countries he didn't.
You're misreading who was actually in charge, but more importantly the little professional military advice that I've read about from credible analysts was clear that attacking Iran was not militarily achievable. Israel having a crack at them was the more plausible scenario, with equally worrying outcomes for the region and for their US sponsors.
But the raw material about that will be in other non-shared, more-secret messages. And I can't be bothered arguing with someone who doesn't know his arse from his elbow even when others helpfully convey the difference.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.